If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I used to date a guy who was adopted at around age 8 by people who beat the crap out of him daily. The adoptive mom was infertile. He used to say that sometimes, infertility is God's way of making sure people don't have kids.

I think that if there is no coverage for anyone to have fertility treatments, at least it's fair and gay couples can't sue for discrimination.

I wish "God" would decide that for a lot of other "parents" out there. lol.

And true, they can't claim discrimination if nobody is getting that coverage. My thing isn't about equality so much that we have more important things to get covered.

Sounds like you are debating the terminology rather than the issue. Who knew you were such a bunch of PC leftists?

I agree with you guys. If you can't have a baby the natural way, you should just do without. Of course, I apply that to heterosexuals as well.

See, there is a huge difference. When a heterosexual couple can't have a child the old fashioned way, you know, the way God intended, they could resort to infertility treatments, artificial insemination, or in rare cases, a surrogate. But in these cases, the treatments are to spur on egg production(the main reason why in these cases multiple births incur). With artificial insemination, sperm from dad and eggs from mom are taken, put together in a dish, and put into mom's womb. The 3rd option is like the 2nd however the fertilized egg is put into a surrogate and that person carries the child to term(think Phoebe on Friends). The whole premise here is that it's still sperm from day and eggs from mom. You put 2 sperm together or 2 eggs together, I don't care who's womb it's going into, you ain't going to make a child.

See, there is a huge difference. When a heterosexual couple can't have a child the old fashioned way, you know, the way God intended, they could resort to infertility treatments, artificial insemination, or in rare cases, a surrogate. But in these cases, the treatments are to spur on egg production(the main reason why in these cases multiple births incur). With artificial insemination, sperm from dad and eggs from mom are taken, put together in a dish, and put into mom's womb. The 3rd option is like the 2nd however the fertilized egg is put into a surrogate and that person carries the child to term(think Phoebe on Friends). The whole premise here is that it's still sperm from day and eggs from mom. You put 2 sperm together or 2 eggs together, I don't care who's womb it's going into, you ain't going to make a child.

My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?

The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

You're comparing apples and ovaries. A married couple who are having medical issues is not the same as a gay couple which is, by definition, sterile. There is no amount of medical spending which will allow two men or two women to conceive a child together. There has to be a tab A and a slot B, and all of the irrational arguments about discrimination, fairness and equality will not change this basic fact of biology. The correct response to your argument is abject ridicule, and John Cleese did it better than anyone:

Sorry, Loretta, but the facts of life are conservative.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?

If she is a single woman who decided to have a child without a father? Yes, I begrudge her all of that, because she made the decision to incur the costs. Why should I have to subsidize your sister's choices?

My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?

Not if I have to pay for it, no. If they have their own insurance then fine. If your sister was relying on the gubment to take care of her and your niece, as the old saying goes, if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em.

You're comparing apples and ovaries. A married couple who are having medical issues is not the same as a gay couple which is, by definition, sterile. There is no amount of medical spending which will allow two men or two women to conceive a child together. There has to be a tab A and a slot B, and all of the irrational arguments about discrimination, fairness and equality will not change this basic fact of biology. The correct response to your argument is abject ridicule, and John Cleese did it better than anyone:

Sorry, Loretta, but the facts of life are conservative.

If she is a single woman who decided to have a child without a father? Yes, I begrudge her all of that, because she made the decision to incur the costs. Why should I have to subsidize your sister's choices?

Homosexuality aside, anybody can ask for coverage to have a baby whether it be through getting sperm donation, using another woman's eggs/womb, etc. Should we cover sperm donation for one woman because she's heterosexual, but not another woman because she's homosexual? Keep in mind that neither one of them can conceive without sperm.

And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.

Anybody remember the 50 year old woman who had her daughter's eggs implanted inside of her to have her husband's baby? I heard about it from a news special years ago. Obviously, she was infertile, and that was totally messed up.

Sirois said she's offered for years to become a surrogate mother for Angel her if a doctor said she shouldn't become pregnant. Hebert, of Presque Isle, said she and husband Brian Hebert got that word last summer.
Angel's egg, fertilized with Brian Hebert's sperm, was successfully implanted.

Doctors have carried out the world’s first womb transplants between a mother and daughter.
Within the past few days, two women have received organs donated by their mothers in the hope they will be able to have children.
The recipients, whose names have not yet been revealed, are aged between 32 and 37, and are from Sweden.

The operations each lasted seven hours and were carried out at the weekend by a team of ten surgeons from the University of Gothenburg.
One of the women had been born without a womb while the other had recently had the organ removed following surgery for cervical cancer.

So, just like a man, these women didn't even have a womb. Biologically speaking, they could never ever have a baby with anybody (man, woman, etc). It just wasn't biologically possible.

Oh, and Octomom got help conceiving. There was no call in that at all. This woman already had six kids and was on public assistance.

So, either everybody should qualify for fertility treatments or nobody should. I personally think we have more important things to cover. I also think it's wrong that people won't give adoption a chance (although the gays have an excuse in a lot of states, which is more than I can say for hetersexual married couples being picky about how to have a child).

Whether something is biologically impossible because the couple is gay, because the woman has no womb, because the guy is shooting planks, the woman's too old to be having kids (selfish, sorry, but it is) or whatever; biologically impossible is biologically impossible is biologically impossible. Period.